Wikipedia talk:Notability (politics)

Politics Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Hello, The second paragraph under the heading Applicable policies and guidelines seems to be incomplete. If someone can fix it, that'd be great as I am not experienced enough to look into such changes. TIA NotJuggerNot (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am surprised that notability would exclude minor political parties. We are talking about including or excluding mention of parties and people who run for elected office? If anyone has run for political office, even for a minor party, I think I should be able to find mention of that on Wiki. That person's whole life story shouldn't be on wiki - but the fact that a name appeared on a ballot - and a minor party's tenets - is pretty central to how democracy is supposed to work. The Green Party in Canada is not considered a "major party" - but it should qualify as notable simply for its importance - even if the newspapers weren't writing about the party. So too with the Communist Party and the None of the Above Party in Canada. Voters want to know their options and may come to wiki to learn about these minor parties - and we should not be censoring critical voting information, based on mere popularity. SabaBPC (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add more context about what is being excluded that you think should be included? The Green Party of Canada has a page, so do their candidates. Now, if a candidate that is so minor that they get no coverage in the WP:RS, should they get a mention in the election coverage on-wiki? I think that's harder. There are a lot of joke candidates, crackpot candidates, where maybe a mention in the final tally is enough, but it would be very hard to write a good article about them because there's not WP:RS coverage for them. Chris vLS (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before this goes anywhere, I would be interested in understanding what issue this guideline solves; why it is needed? BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

☖ 18:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Should this section include statutory agencies? Adondai (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The person serves as a diplomat and has received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. This seems contrary to
  WP:ONEEVENT
  .
• The person is a member of the supreme court for a country's national or subnational judiciary. What is the standard for "subnational judiciary"? I've found it difficult enough to write articles on chief justices of African Supreme Courts in the 20th century (see Nicolas Bayona Ba Meya and Joseph Bukera, rather skimpy but they do pass the bar), and while I've seen various appellate court justices named in appointment ordinances and whatnot, I've found it very difficult to find any biographical info about them. Even a lot of members of the highest courts remain illusive.

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn put together this page WP:Notability (people)/Subnational politicians as a start to help editors understand what counts as a subnational government. I believe it could be edited to encompass courts. - Enos733 (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, POLOUTCOMES and NPOL have a de facto agreement that people who purely gain their notability through politics, but don't meet NPOL criteria, aren't notable...even if they would pass NBIO, unless the coverage is appreciably in excess of the norm.

This is most commonly seen for unsuccessful candidates, such as for US HOR elections.

This is something I support (it's what keeps us from being flooded by candidate pages). I can't quite tell how your proposed rewrite comes down on the question, but I'd like to see (like NCORP) a formal designation that the rules may well be stricter than the traditional NBIO. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is not, and never has been, any consensus that merely being nominated by any political party for a political contest at the national level is automatically sufficient grounds for a Wikipedia article.

To be fair, in some countries it's virtually impossible to get nominated as a candidate at that level without already having preexisting notability anyway -- nobody is ever going to win the Democratic or Republican nominations in a US presidential election without already having held other NPOL-passing offices (or other notable roles in business or the military) that meant they already had a Wikipedia article before becoming a presidential candidate, for example -- but there's never been any consensus that merely being a candidate is always grounds for an article in and of itself for a person who didn't have any other preexisting notability claims. As written, that criterion is also ambiguous enough that it could be cited as forcing us to keep major party candidates for the House of Representatives or the Senate (which are, after all, at the "national" level) regardless of their success or failure, which is also not the consensus position.

So "Politicians #6" is a no. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coming off the issues of disruptive editing involving a niche political Twitter account declaring his own candidacy for the 2028 US Pennsylvania Senate election, it feels like more instances of this will occur with younger generations who are experienced with Wikipedia that will take advantage of the site for self-promotion purposes (particularly if their niche fanbase is so determined to add his/her name onto Wikipedia despite having no outside public recognition). Therefore, I feel that if more of this phenomenon occurs in time, that there should be some advisory on how to regulate which candidates get featured on to specific election articles.

This issue is particularly annoying when there's a dozen or so of these self-proclaimed candidates on every election article, backed by social media accounts of this user under "Endorsements" (which also happened with the 2028 Pennsylvania Election article). Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to think about whether you want "country" to apply only to